As a result, the theory and associated empirical research on policy styles and
governance will help to shape the analysis of Gelsenkirchen and Newcastle. Thus far, however, the vast majority of comparative studies using these perspectives have focused at the national level – and several have been somewhat inconclusive about the extent to which convergence is taking place (see for example Richardson, 1982, Hanf and Jansen, 1998). This national focus might be expected, given that the concept of policy styles assumes that different countries adopt distinct approaches to addressing similar policy problems. However, not only does it neglect important actors in policy formulation and delivery, but it may also be the case that municipalities are more vulnerable to changes in policy style, because they face more complex exogenous challenges than national governments (see chapter 1).
Nonetheless, there is a growing literature on local climate policies. For example, some commentators have investigated the impact of climate change issues on specific urban planning or transport policies (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2003), or focused on how
municipalities have sought to work with private actors on adaptation initiatives (Mees, 2014). There have also been numerous investigations into how economic
development goals have shaped climate policy at a local level (Dierwechter, 2010, Lundqvist and von Borgstede, 2008, Wesselink and Gouldson, 2014). Another recent study has focused on how policy-makers in three German cities have taken account of their local contexts and priorities to develop very different approaches to climate policy (Heinelt and Lamping, 2015). There have even been comparisons of climate change policy in German and English cities, such as Bulkeley and Kern (2006), which highlights four useful different ‘modes’ of governing locally. These are:
48
Self-governing – when municipalities seek to achieve political objectives by governing their own corporate activities (such as installing energy efficiency initiatives in public buildings, or purchasing green energy).
Governing by provision – when municipalities seek to shape the behaviour of local actors through services and resources (for example, by providing a public transport infrastructure or recycling scheme).
Governing by authority – when municipalities introduce traditional regulations or directions (like planning policies, road-charging, or pedestrianisation), which are enforced by sanctions.
Governing through enabling – when municipalities try to facilitate and encourage action through partnerships, engagement, incentives and persuasion (this includes running advertising campaigns, providing loans to private individuals for green initiatives, or guidance to planners, architects and transport companies).
Bulkeley and Kern highlight the trend towards governing through enabling in both countries, which fits comfortably with multi-level governance interpretations, the increasing involvement of non-state actors in policy-making, and the increasing trend for municipalities to engage horizontally with other governance actors in order to achieve their objectives. It also suggests that one sub-dimension of the typically ‘English’ policy style is becoming dominant in both countries, and the ‘German’ preference for hierarchy is less prevalent. To investigate this further, this thesis will analyse three policy sectors over which local authorities are able to exert different levels of control (see section 1.3.2 in chapter 1). Indeed, we might expect the case study municipalities to rely on each of Bulkeley and Kern’s modes of governing to achieve their climate change objectives. For example, climate change strategies are likely to involve both ‘governing by provision’ and ‘governing by enabling’, due to the need for local authorities to involve other actors in policy-making and also persuade them to behave in a more environmentally-friendly manner. In terms of planning policies, the fact that municipalities can set out specific rules for new building developments means that they have an opportunity to ‘govern by authority’
49
in this sector. Finally, the analysis of corporate policies on resource use fits neatly into the ‘self-governing’ mode.
Bulkeley is one of many geographers who analyse climate change in cities, although her colleagues in the discipline tend to focus more on how municipalities have used sustainability to try and address economic problems in post-industrial areas
(Pasquinelli, 2014). Indeed, this idea of the ‘sustainability fix’ (While et al., 2004), which involves cities trying to solve problems of urban decline by re-branding
themselves as being ‘green’ and ‘forward-looking’ undoubtedly plays a role in policy development at the local level (see also Keil and Whitehead, 2012). This thesis will take account of such perspectives as a way of trying to understand the strategies adopted by the case study cities. Indeed, it is particularly relevant when analysing the reasons why Gelsenkirchen or Newcastle may have opted for state of the art solutions to climate change: such ambitious investments may well suggest that the municipality is keen to present the city in a new, sustainable light. However, it highlights how most scholars of local climate governance come from a geographical perspective (see Hoornweg et al., 2011 for a comprehensive overview of the literature): political scientists have largely neglected this important research field.
Another key factor likely to shape policy styles is the institutional and political
context within which each local authority operates. This includes its relationships with other policy-making actors and – crucially – the power dependencies within these relationships. Notably, many local (or ‘urban’) governance typologies identify significant differences between the local government systems of Germany and the UK/England (Goldsmith and Page, 1987, Hesse and Sharpe, 1991, Bennett, 1993, Norton, 1994, Pierre, 1999, John, 2001, Hulst and van Montfort, 2007). In particular, they highlight contrasts in their legal or constitutional status, functions, size, and reliance on central government for financial and other resources. Therefore, even though the socioeconomic and historical contexts of Newcastle and Gelsenkirchen are very similar, their local authorities are likely to have different levels of capacity to achieve their policy objectives (see section 2.2.7).
For the purpose of this thesis, therefore, it is crucial to analyse the evolving nature of local governance in England and Germany, because this will shape the capacity of
50
Gelsenkirchen and Newcastle councils to act on particular issues. Indeed, Chapter 3 will focus particularly on the nature of horizontal and vertical relationships involving municipalities, and set out a number of significant differences in the genesis and development of local government in Germany and the UK. For example, sub-national governments in Germany have enjoyed greater political freedom than their English counterparts for most of the last two centuries, in accordance with the constitutional guarantee of lokale Selbstverwaltung (local self-administration).
Crucially, however, we should not confuse the concepts of autonomy and capacity. For example, a council that enjoys significant freedom from central direction may be substantially constrained by a lack of resources, an unclear constitutional status or a reliance on unpredictable revenue streams. In other words, although some authorities may be quite autonomousof higher tiers of government, they might have limited ability to achieve their objectives independently of other actors. Alternatively, local authorities that ‘surrender’ some of their freedom by partnering with external actors may find that they are better placed to deliver policy goals than municipalities that jealously guard their independence. This is particularly the case in sectors such as climate change, given the importance of an inclusive and holistic approach to addressing such wicked issues (Wollmann, 2004).
As this suggests, a municipality’s internal level of capacity is likely to shape its governance approach, because decision-makers will probably try to identify and adopt the most realistic and effective way of implementing policy. In other words, a council may be able to exercise its hierarchical authority in some areas, but in other sectors it might need to compromise with external actors in order to achieve its objectives (see Sellers and Lidström, 2007). This principle may also apply across jurisdictions, because the institutional context may mean that councils in one country are more constrained than their counterparts elsewhere. For example, local authorities in the US have far less capacity in the area of environmental policy than municipalities in
Germany – and therefore they have to rely much more on external actors in
governance arrangements (Sellers, 2002). Similarly, in his famous study of the city of Atlanta, Stone (1989) found that public bodies had to work extremely closely with private businesses in order to address racial tensions effectively. Indeed, Stone argued that the municipal authority formed a semi-permanent ‘regime’ with private
51
businesses, and emphasised how it sought to increase its ‘power to’ achieve policy objectives – rather than its ‘power over’ other actors in the city.
Overall, the literature on urban governance confirms the general shift towards governance and away from state hierarchy. It also shows how the desire of municipalities to increase their capacity is a key driver of this process, as local authorities seek out resources from other actors in order to achieve their policy objectives. Crucially, however, it highlights how the institutional context within which municipalities operate is likely to affect their level of capacity – and therefore shape the nature of their policy-making arrangements. Indeed, as the remaining chapters of this thesis will illustrate, differences in the genesis and evolution of local government in Germany and England has meant that councils in these countries tend to rely on contrasting governance approaches – with the former more likely to rely on hierarchy and the latter preferring greater horizontal engagement and compromise. Of course, such characterisations fit with the typical policy styles that have been
attributed to both countries at the national level – something that also represents an important finding for the purposes of this thesis.